This is, incidentally, our last area, Your Honor; be about five more minutes.
The relevance is that we would be able to show through this witness -- and depositions have been taken of all the underlying people defense wanted to take depositions of to support these calculations and numbers.
That of the total number of Ford vehicles made during that period, we're able to show that there were only 375 of the Broncos of the type that Mr. Simpson drove registered in LA County on the day of the murders; that's step one.
Step two is that the likelihood of encountering a Ford with the same kind of carpet as Mr. Simpson's had on the day of the murders was three in 10,000.
And the likelihood of encountering a Bronco with the same carpet at the time of the murders was six in 100,000.
So that's where the testimony's going.
But the first step is, in terms of likelihood that if you, alone in LA County on the date of the murders, there were only 375 Broncos that had the kind of carpet fiber that was found on critical items of evidence at the crime scene, as I say, there were depositions taken of all the underlying witnesses going to these numbers and statistics. And we feel that while the defense can certainly argue it could be one of those other 375, we think we have a right to argue, as we do with the hair and fiber and other evidence, that it's one more factor that points to Mr. Simpson.
And the defense can certainly argue well, it could have been 374 other people; somebody could have driven in from out of state, or whatever. But we believe we can show the uniqueness of this carpet fiber, and this is a way of showing it.
Your Honor, this is raising what turns out to be an art form, and you'll learn that to a level, that absolutely is misleading.
You'll see when you finish with this witness. Raising to a level of scientific certainty with this fancy probability of calculation, I mean, what difference does it make if there's 375 Broncos. We know there are at least 72,000 vehicles out there with the same type of carpet.
No, we don't need that for this. They've never excluded the fact that Masland makes this.
I call to your attention a case called People versus One Gold Cadillac or One Pink Cadillac, a deputy district attorney, Ray Sinetar from L.A. County who got a conviction based on exactly the kind of evidence you offer, and they overturned it.
The facts of the case were, is that a black guy with a white prostitute driving a certain color Cadillac automobile, and at a certain location. So Ray Sinetar, who was a classmate of mine in law school, and he was Order of the Coif one of the bright guys who became district attorney of Ventura County. He had this theory, just like yours, of proving that statistically there was nobody else -- statistically, there would be only an astronomical combination of those factors in this particular location, indicating that this guy was the guy.
But wasn't that case -- I don't remember clearly, but I think I read it -- but doesn't the case deal with probability woman and a man with somebody of the opposite race at a particular place at a particular time at a particular location.
No, no it's different, if Your Honor please, because here we have -- we know you had a Bronco here. We have a witness, Mr. Heidstra, I believe, that testified that the car he saw leaving was consistent with being a Bronco. And we know --
Wait. I'm sorry.
But we know we have carpet fiber found on items that Mr. Simpson had. There was carpet fibers in his Bronco.
Well, minimally, I assume I can get down to the rarity, that there's only 375 registered, if I can't get the probability.
Okay.
And how many of those have his hair type, fibers, and how many of those are found on his property?
You know, your statistical analysis is meaningless when compared with the real import of the evidence that you are adducing through commonality of factors that point to the defendant. These numbers mean nothing.
These numbers give us -- these numbers give a plethora or a prelature of numbers to a conclusion that is just statistically meaningless in terms of evidentiary value.
Under 352 of the Evidence Code, I'm going to find it means nothing; that the aspect of it is so insignificant, that under 352.
I think the prejudicial aspect of throwing numbers you have up on a board to a jury, giving it the respectability of numbers, has a far prejudicial value compared to the probative value.
I think your probative value of the evidence is the essence of the evidence itself, not the numbers.
KEY QUOTEYour Honor, was the -- when you say putting evidence on the board, I mean, was that -- would there be a difference if we elicited the evidence from the witness. I don't --
Are you saying the fact that there are only 375 Bronco vehicles registered in LA County at the time of the murders isn't a factor that we can argue.
Mr. Medvene what significance does that have in connection, when contrasted with the evidence of commonality that it's evidence thus far.
Those are scientifically, statistically accepted in the community. I presume you're going to have testimony that goes to that.
Well, isn't a statistical getting it to 375, Your Honor?
In other words, if the probability is one thing, but the fact that only that many Broncos -- that's a fact. I mean, that's something that they've examined the people on. Those are the number of vehicles registered.
You're not even supposed to be here.
Judge, if we elicited the testimony of the 375 and don't try to put it in context of all the big numbers, can we just leave it at that?
The same with the number of gloves ordered or anything else. It's the relative improbabilities, in a general sense. You have a sexual evidence case, you've got to put all these different pieces of evidence together. It's just one link in the chain.
If we use that and avoid all the different large numbers, I think it makes --
The reason I'm going to sustain the objection is because the -- because the patina of throwing numbers up there is grossly prejudicial to the probative value. And under 352, I'm going to sustain the objection.
Take it up on appeal.
May I ask -- I don't want to do it in front of the jury if I can't ask it, because this is my last area; it will be my last question. And I don't want to ask it if I can't --
I'm just asking if I may ask this question. I don't want to ask it if you think it's improper, because of your ruling.
May I ask as the last question, based on your investigation, were the number of vehicles with the same kind of carpet as Mr. Simpson's registered in LA County in June of 1994, was that a small number.
If they don't want to get into the number, have just that one question.
That leaves me at a disadvantage because then I have to reconstruct all this. That leaves it hanging out there.
Okay. I just want to get a question, because I've been kind of set up here in a sense, that they knew this testimony was coming; they waited. There was no motion. We started the testimony. And I just want something that I can finish up with.
I mean, it's not like any of these things were a secret, Dan, so ... no indication. We could have argued this out before the Judge before the questioning started.
So I would just like to establish that there are relatively few Bronco vehicles with this kind of carpet in LA County.
It's up to you if you want to open it.
All right. Leave it on my plate. We've already got 72,000 vehicles up there, and that there's --
It's mis -- I didn't mean to use that, but to have up there, if there's 7,000 vehicles, puts me at a disadvantage because the real number is 375. If there's going to be this objection it could have been made before we started.
We didn't try springing this on anybody; we've been over this before. I've discussed it with Mr. Leonard.
What do you mean "real number" `375. It has no significance to the case whatsoever.
That's another argument. The real number in the sense that's the number of Broncos that was registered on the night of the murder with the same kind of carpet.
So what do you need all this mumbo jumbo statistics for?
These numbers give us -- these numbers give a plethora or a prelature of numbers to a conclusion that is just statistically meaningless in terms of evidentiary value.
I think the prejudicial aspect of throwing numbers you have up on a board to a jury, giving it the respectability of numbers, has a far prejudicial value compared to the probative value.
How many are registered to O.J. Simpson? ... How many of those have his hair type, fibers, and how many of those are found on his property? Your statistical analysis is meaningless when compared with the real import of the evidence.
Judge, they're triple-teaming me here.